Your Councillors


 

 

 

 

 

 

Dog Controls PSPO Consultation 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methodology

The survey was open between 12th May and 12th July 2020. It was promoted online through the Council’s website and social media channels. Residents who have signed up for consultation reminders were notified and sent an invitation to participate in the consultation.

 

There was a total of 1624 responses to the survey, there are 1480 weighted responses. 

 

As an online survey is a self-selection methodology, with residents free to choose whether to participate or not, it was anticipated that returned responses would not necessarily be fully representative of the wider adult population. This report discusses the weighted results to overall responses by demographic questions to ensure that it more accurately matches the known profile of Maidstone Borough’s population by these characteristics.

 

The results have been weighted by age and gender based on the population in the ONS mid-year population estimates 2018. However, the under-representation of 18 to 34 year olds means that high weights have been applied to responses in this group, therefore results for this group should be treated with caution. It should also be noted that respondents from BME backgrounds are under-represented at 4.6% compared to 5.9% in the local area. The results for this group should also be treated with caution.

 

There were a total of 1480 weighted responses to the survey based on Maidstone’s population aged 18 years and over. This means overall results are accurate to ±2.53% at the 95% confidence level. This indicates that if we repeated the same survey 100 times, 95 times out of 100 the results would be between ±2.53% of the calculated response, so the ‘true’ response could be 2.53% above or below the figures reported (i.e. a 50% agreement rate could in reality lie within the range of 52.53% to 47.47%).

 

Please note that not every respondent answered every question, therefore the total number of respondents refers to the number of respondents for the question being discussed, not to the survey overall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increase the FPN for dog fouling to £100
Make it an offence to fail to provide, when asked by an authorised officer, a name and address in relation to a fouling incident

Measure 1 – Dog Fouling

 

Survey respondents were asked if they were in favour of introducing measure 1 as described above.

There were 1477 weighted responses to this question, with the most common response being ‘Yes’ with 1335 respondents answering this way.

The chart below shows the proportions responding ‘Yes’ across the different respondent groups.

·         There was a significantly greater proportion of respondents without a dog that were in favour of introducing measure 1, compared to respondents that said they do not own a dog.

·         One in ten dog owners disagreed with measure 1, this group was almost three times more likely to respond ‘not sure’ - these differences are significant.

·         There was a significantly lower proportion of respondents aged 18-34 answering ‘yes’ to measure 1 than the other age groups. One in ten in of this group disagreed with this measure – significantly greater than the other age groups.

·         The difference between the proportion of carer and non-carers agreeing with measure 1 is significant. Whilst there were no significant differences between these groups answering ‘no’, Carers were significantly more likely than non-carers to respond, ‘not sure’.

·         Although economically active respondents had a lower proportion agreeing with measure 1 than economically inactive respondents – this difference is not significant. However, there are significant differences between these groups for the remaining answer options. Economically active respondents had a significantly greater proportion responding ‘no’ and a significantly lower proportion responding ‘not sure’ than those from the economically inactive group.

Comments about Measure 1

There were 571 unique comments made in relation to measure 1.

Dog fouling is disgusting. I have several very unpleasant experiences of treading in dogs' mess. My children once got it all over their school clothes playing in the park as it was smeared all over the play equipment. It is not the dog's fault. It is bad owners.19 comments have been classified as N/A, these were where the intention of the comment is ambiguous or where an unrelated issue has been raised.

In total there were 118 comments that expressed disgust at dog fouling, stating that dog fouling had increased, or they identified specific locations in the borough where they had noticed an issue.  Some respondents stated that it was worse than littering and others stated that they encountered dog fouling daily. There were also 51 comments referring to irresponsible owners.

There were 117 comments that suggested measures should be harsher. Most comments suggested raising the FPN amount, with the greatest amount suggested being £1000. There were also suggestions for increasing the FPN for subsequent breaches and a few that suggested removal or confiscation of the dog involved.

The important part is actually enforcing payment of the fine, not the fine amount. I believe what 's needed is fines that actually get collected.There were 110 comments relating to enforcement.  Many questioned how this would be enforced with many stating they have never seen an officer patrolling. There were also several commenters that were concerned about who the ‘authorised officer’ would be, how they would be identified and the general handling of personal information.

There were 49 comments about dog poo bags being discarded and not put in bins and 28 comments about bins for dog fouling, with respondents requesting that the number of bins be increased. There were also nine comments suggesting that people should be spot checked or fined for not carrying dog poo bags.

Having had dogs in the past and walked them in public places, picking up their waste was something l did without thinking about. Those who don't should be fined. I am in full agreement to Measure 1.There were 40 comments that were positive or agreed with measure 1, as proposed and 34 that suggested that measure 1 was not a sufficient deterrent or would have little impact. There were 28 commenters that thought the measure should be less harsh, with many of those stating that the FPN amount should not be increased. Some felt the fine should be the same as for littering and others were concerned about the financial impact this could have on low income households. There were also requests to consider specific circumstances, for example, if a dog was unwell and the owner has made the effort to clear it up.

There were 17 comments where litter was mentioned alongside dog fouling.  Most comments stated that littering was worse or that the fine for both offences (littering and dog fouling) should be the same.

Six comments were classified as ‘other.’ A few comments mentioned income generation and one questioned what the monies collected from fines would go towards. Another comment made the point that it was more difficult to find appropriate places to exercise a dog and Legal highlighted the Animal Welfare Act 2006 requirement to provide dogs with ‘suitable exercise.’

There were 38 comments that made the following suggestions:

·         To bring back dog licences.

·         Develop an easy way to report offenders.

·         Develop a tiered system for repeat offenders, using DNA and the microchip database.

·         Provide bins with poo bag dispensers.

·         Educating residents.

·         Community service such as litter picking rather than fines. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measure 2 – Exclusion from children's play areas and council owned tennis courts

Expand on the existing dog control order to include exclusion of dogs from all children's play areas and council owned tennis courts (as shown in the maps)
Increase the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for this offence to £100, in line with other offences
Make it an offence to fail to provide, when asked by an authorised officer, a name and address in relation to an incident of not keeping a dog out of an excluded area

 

Survey respondents were asked if they were in favour of introducing measure one as described above.

There were a total of 1479 weighted responses to this question, with the most common response being ‘Yes’ with 1181 answering this way.

The chart below shows the proportions responding ‘Yes’ across the different respondent groups.

·         The difference between dog owners and non-dog owners agreeing with measure two is significant. There were no significant differences between the two groups response level for ‘not sure.’ However, more than a quarter (28.0%) of dog owners said they did not agree with this measure compared to 4.1% of respondents who said they did not own a dog.

·         A significantly lower proportion of female respondents agreed with measure 2 compared to male respondents. Whilst there was not a significant difference between the proportions responding ‘no’, female respondents had a greater proportion responding ‘not sure’ at 9.1% compared to 3.5% of male responders.

·         A significantly lower proportion of 18-34-year olds agreed with measure 2 with significantly greater proportions responding ‘no’ and ‘not sure’ compared to all the other age groups.

·         A significantly lower proportion of the economically active group agreed with measure 2 compared to economically inactive respondents and a significantly greater proportion the economically active responding ‘no’ and ‘not sure’.

·         Whilst there were no significant differences between the proportion of carer and non-carers agreeing with measure 2, there were significant differences between these groups answering ‘no’ and ‘not sure’. A significantly greater proportion of carers responded ‘no’ than non-carers, and non-carers had a significantly greater proportion responding ‘not sure’ when compared to carers. 

·         A significantly greater proportion of respondents with a disability responded ‘yes’ to measure 2 than respondents without a disability. The data shows that non-disabled respondents had more concerns with this measure, with 15.2% responding ‘not sure’ compared to 7.5% of respondents with a disability answering the same way.

·         A significantly greater proportion of BME respondents agreed with measure 2 when compared with respondents from white groups.

Measure 2 Comments

There were 420 unique comments made in relation to measure 2.

If dogs are loose in children’s' play areas not only are they likely to foul the area but there is an increased likelihood of interaction between children and the animals and this can sometimes lead to problems.22 comments have been classified as N/A, these were where the intention of the comment is ambiguous or where an unrelated issue has been raised (this also includes comments about ensuring support dogs are exempt as this covered by different legislation and no restrictions are proposed for this group).

101 comments have been classified as being in favour of measure 2, with respondents agreeing that play areas in particular are not places for dogs.  There were also 45 comments about children’s safety around dogs and the need for these groups to be separate.

This is a difficult one. I often take my niece to the park with my dog and it’s very difficult to keep an eye on her from outside. I find it very stressful which kills any joy I get. I am a very responsible dog owner so you need to find ways to ensure all are. Then it wouldn’t be an issue.There were 45 comments where respondents raised exclusion concerns, worried that this could impact on families with young children and dogs. There were also 16 comments that mentioned having a secure place to exercise and socialise dogs like a dog park. 25 comments stated that all play areas should be enclosed/fenced.

 

 

The deterrent is already there, it just needs more enforcement, I am against the fine increasing by £25 to £100.There were 32 comments around enforcement. These mentioned not seeing enforcement officers, raised concerns over providing personal information and queried how enforceable this measure is.

There were 22 comments that expressed disagreement with this measure with respondents stating that this measure would not work or that dogs should be allowed in play areas or when empty they are useful for training purposes. Some of these comments refer to this measure as unnecessary over policing. There were 12 comments that referred to previous bad experiences – most of these relate to dog fouling.

There were 28 comments that expressed partial agreement with measure 2 where it was suggested that dogs on leads or under control should be allowed in but the FPN should increase or that the fine should be lower. In addition there were 20 comments that expressed that the measure should be more lenient or less harsh, such as a first warning or lower fines and 19 comments that suggested the measure should be harsher such as having a bigger fine.

This should be extended to cover any area of open land where children might play.There were 29 comments that suggested that the measure needed to go further or be tougher. It was suggested that the measure be extended to playing fields, sports areas, village greens and school gates and that dogs should be on the lead in all parks. There were also suggestions for dog free areas of parks and dog only areas of parks.

There were 23 comments that contained suggestions. Respondents said that there should be more benches on the perimeter of play areas and places to secure dogs or pet stations. There were also suggestions for education for offenders, clear signage in parks to show where dogs are and are not allowed and for it to be mandatory for dog walkers to carry dog bags. There were also several suggestions to bring back dog licensing.

18 comments have been classified as ‘other’ with some just saying that not all dog owners are responsible or asking questions about how the measure would work.


 

Prohibit dogs from entering Vinters Park Crematorium and grounds unless prior agreement has been sought from the Bereavement Services Manager in special circumstances. Accredited working assistance dogs are permitted at all times.
Introduce a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for this offence to £100, in line with other offences.
Make it an offence to fail to provide, when asked by an authorised officer, a name and address in relation to an incident of not keeping a dog out of an excluded area.
Measure 3 - Exclusion of dogs from Vinters Park Crematorium

 

Survey respondents were asked if they were in favour of introducing measure one as described about.

There were 1478 weighted responses this question, with the most common response being ‘Yes’ with 1078 answering this way.

The chart below shows the proportions responding ‘Yes’ across the different respondent groups.

·         A significantly greater proportion of dog owners responded ‘no’ at 28.4%, compared to respondents without a dog where 8.7% answered this way.

·         A lower proportion of female respondents agreed with measure 3 and greater proportion responded ‘not sure’ compared to male respondents. 15.1% of female respondents answered, ‘not sure’ and 5.3% of male respondents answered the same.

·         Agreement with measure 3 appears to increase with age. A significantly lower proportion of 18-34-year olds agreed with measure three and a significantly greater proportion of this group responded ‘no’ compared to the other age groups. This group also had the greatest proportion of ‘not sure’ responses, at 14.5%.

·         A lower proportion of economically active respondents agreed with measure 3 compared to economically inactive respondents. Economically active respondents had a significantly greater proportion of ‘no’ responses, with just over one in five answering this way.

·         Respondents with a disability had a significantly lower proportion of ‘not sure’ responses with 5.9% responding this way compared to 11.1% of respondents with a disability answering the same way.

Measure 3 Comments

A total of 306 unique comments were received for measure 3.

46 comments have been classified as N/A, these were where the intention of the comment is ambiguous or where an unrelated issue has been raised (this also includes comments about ensuring support dogs are exempt as this is covered by different legislation and no restrictions are proposed for this group).

Providing a dog is kept on a short lead & owners are respectful I don't see the issue with dogs being allowed in this area.There were 73 comments that suggested that dogs on leads would be acceptable at the crematorium, many with the proviso that this was if the owner was responsible and cleared up any dog mess.

There were 45 comments that were against or negative about measure 3, with some stating they did not see the need for this measure or opposed a total ban on dogs at the crematorium.

This is a place where people go to gain comfort and be with departed loved ones in peace and quiet, there are plenty of other places people can exercise their dogs. Absolutely agree assistance dogs only.There were 46 comments in which respondents expressed that dogs provided comfort during grief and that dogs should be permitted to attend the services of their owners.

There were 63 comments that were in favour of measure 3. Respondents felt that it was not an appropriate place for a dog, that there was no need for them to be there and that there were other places more appropriate for dog walking. There were also 17 comments stating that the crematorium was a special, quiet, contemplative place.

15 comments referred to enforcement, with respondents querying how this measure would be enforced but also several queries about ‘authorised officers’. Clarification was being sought on how they would be identifiable, what would happen if you refused to provide details and data protection concerns around providing a stranger with personal details.

People should be asked to leave first before fining if they then refuse.13 respondents suggested that this measure should be more lenient such as imposing a lower fine or asking someone to leave the area before issuing a fine. Seven said this measure should be harsher such as a greater fine.

There were seven general suggestions which included having set times where a dog would be allowed at the crematorium, tiered fines for repeat offences, clear signage and  having an appeals system for refusals and identification for people who have been granted permission.  

18 comments were classified as ‘other’ due to not fitting into any of the themes already mentioned in this section. Respondents mentioned the practicalities of asking permission to visit with their dog, that a different measure was being proposed for the cemetery and querying whether or not this was an issue at the crematorium and therefore whether the measure is required?

 

 

 


 

Measure 4 – Dogs on leads by direction

Make it a legal requirement for a person in charge of a dog to comply with a request from an authorised officer to put a dog on a lead.
Introduce a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for this offence to £100, in line with other offences.
Make it an offence to fail to provide, when asked by an authorised officer, a name and address in relation to failing to comply with putting a dog on a lead upon request.

 

Survey respondents were asked if they were in favour of introducing measure 4 as described above.

There were 1479 weighted responses to this question, with the most common response being ‘Yes’ with 1308 answering this way.

The chart below shows the proportions responding ‘Yes’ across the different respondent groups.

·         A significantly greater proportion of respondents without a dog that were in favour of introducing measure 4, compared to respondents that said they did not own a dog. Just over one in ten dog owners disagreed with measure 4, this group also had a greater proportion responding ‘not sure’ - these differences are significant.

·         Female respondents had a significantly lower proportion of ‘not sure’ responses for measure 4 compared to male respondents. Whilst there was not a significant difference between the proportions in each group who responded ‘yes’, male respondents had a greater proportion of ‘no’ responses at 9.6% compared to 5.4% of female responders.

·         The 18 to 34 years group had a significantly lower proportion of agreement with measure four with a significantly a greater proportion of this group responded ‘no’ and ‘not sure’ compared to all the other age groups.

·         There are significant differences across all the answer options for economically active and economically inactive respondents. There was a lower proportion of economically active respondents agreeing with measure 4 than economically inactive respondents. Economically active respondents had a significantly greater proportion of ‘no’ responses and a significantly greater proportion who responded ‘not sure’ than those from the economically inactive group.

·         There are significant differences between carers and non-carer answering ‘no’ and ‘not sure’. Carers had a significantly greater proportion of ‘no’ responses than non-carers, and non-carers had a significantly greater proportion of ‘not sure’ responses when compared to carers. 

·         Respondents with a disability had a significantly greater proportion of ‘not sure’ responses with 10.0% answering this way compared to 3.1% of respondents without a disability. Respondents without a disability had a greater proportion of ‘no’ responses to this measure than those with a disability with 8.5% of this group answering this way compared to 5.7% of disabled respondents.

 

Measure 4 Comments

There were 341 unique comments provided in relation to measure 4.

18 comments have been classified as N/A, these were where the intention of the comment is ambiguous or where an unrelated issue has been raised.

Yes if an officer asks you to put your dog on a lead do as you are asked - life skill for everyone.Overall, there were 63 comments that expressed support for measure 4, with respondents stating that the owner should be responsible for their animal at all times and that a responsible dog owner should comply with a reasonable request for them to place their dog on its lead.

There were also 65 comments that suggested the measure should go further and that dogs should be required to be on leads in more places such as the  highway and public parks or that dog should be on leads at all times.

specifically, who are the authorised officer and what circumstances will they be able to make such a request? this is very unspecific and worrying.There were 14 comments that did not support measure 4. Here respondents felt that this measure was unfair to dogs and that the definitions in the draft order were vague and open to misinterpretation. In addition, there were 32 comments that queried the reasons that could be given for making such a request with concerns about bias. There were also two comments where the impact of this measure was questioned – the feeling being that this measure would not have the desired impact.

There were 16 comments which mentioned dog owners being responsible. Respondents stated that whilst some dogs are well behaved, others are not, so dog owners should be responsible for their pets. Some of these comments also highlighted the need for dogs to have proper exercise and this being part of responsible dog ownership. 

There were 46 comments about enforcement, with comments highlighting the same issues as for previous measures.  For example, the ability of the council to enforce, data protection concerns, identification of enforcement officers and abuse of powers.

More than £100 would be better... £250 first offence... £500 second offence... 3rd Offence remove permission to keep animal.There were 28 comments saying that this measure should be harsher with most expressing the fine should be larger and a few saying that the measure should be expanded to include areas such a farmland and highways. There were 13 that said the measure should be more lenient, with most of these against the proposed increase in fine.

There were 35 comments in which respondents stated that some individuals were afraid of dogs, have had bad experiences or dislike them. 13 mentioned a time when a dog had been a nuisance to them such as jumping up or approaching their own dog.  

There were 20 comments that contained a suggestion. These included bringing back dog licensing, confiscating the dog, requests for signage and education for dog owners and that all dogs should be muzzled.

There were 5 comments that have been classified as ‘Other’ one of these queried if it was okay to carry the dog if it was small, one mentioned that this shouldn’t be a income generation exercise and one queried the seriousness of the problem on the basis that this was not the first time the Council has consulted on these issues.


Make it a legal requirement for a person in charge of a dog to comply with a request from an authorised officer to keep a dog on a lead in Sutton Road Cemetery.
Introduce a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for this offence to £100, in line with other offences.
Make it an offence to fail to provide, when asked by an authorised officer, a name and address in relation to failing to keep dog(s) on leads in Sutton Road Cemetery.
Measure 5 – Dogs on leads at Sutton Road Cemetery

 

Survey respondents were asked if they were in favour of introducing measure 5 as described above.

There were 1471 weighted responses to this question, with the most common response being ‘Yes’ with 1305 answering this way.

 The chart below shows the proportions responding ‘Yes’ across the different respondent groups.

·         A significantly greater proportion of respondents without a dog were in favour of introducing measure 5, compared to respondents that said they did not own a dog. Just over one in ten dog owners (11.5%) disagreed with measure 5.

·         A significantly greater proportion of female responders responded ‘yes’ to measure 5 compared to male respondents. Whilst there was not a significant difference between the proportions that responded, ‘not sure’, a greater proportion of male respondents responded ‘not sure’ at 9.9% compared to 3.8% of female responders.

·         The 18 to 34 years group had the greatest proportion of ‘not sure’ responses across the age groups. The difference between the proportions that responded this way compared to the other age groups is significant.

·         A significantly lower proportion of economically active respondents agreed with measure 5 compared to economically inactive respondents.  8.7% of Economically active respondents responded ‘no’ compared to 2.5% of the economically inactive group.

·         There are significant differences between carers and non-carer answering ‘yes’ and ‘no’. A significantly greater proportion of carers responded ‘no’ compared to non-carers.  9.9% of carers responded this way compared to 5.6% of non-carers. The difference in the proportion responding ‘yes’ between these two groups was also significant. 

·         There are significant differences between those with a disability and those with a disability answering ‘yes’ and ‘no’. A significantly greater proportion of respondents with a disability responded ‘yes’ compared to those without a disability. 2.6% of respondents without a disability responded ’no’ with 7.5% compared to 2.6% of those with a disability.

 

Measure 5 Comments

There were 233 unique comments provided in relation to measure 5.

Dogs should always be on the lead in cemeteries, in my opinion, in respect to the dead.31 comments have been classified as N/A, these were where the intention of the comment is ambiguous or where an unrelated issue has been raised (this includes where the responder has referred to previous comments given e.g. see previous comment).

There were 43 comments that supported measure 5. Respondents stated that it was inappropriate to have dogs running around the cemetery, fouling on graves or being a nuisance to those visiting departed loved ones. In addition, there were 33 comments that mentioned the cemetery being a quiet, restful place for contemplation rather than an area to exercise dogs.  15 mention the need for dogs to be on leads or under control in this area and 33 comments said that dogs should be banned from the cemetery.

All cemetery's and crematoriums should have the same legislation to make it easier for people to understand and follow.There were four respondents that disagreed with this measure and 27 that queried the difference in controls for the crematorium and the cemetery, questioning why different measures were proposed for each.

15 comments suggested the measure should be harsher such as greater fines for repeat offenders or expanding the measure to include all public spaces. There were 15 comments that suggested that the measure should be more lenient, most of which were opposed to increasing the level of the fine.  

There were 15 comments that referred to enforcement and as with previous measures these queried how the measure would be enforced with a few urging for a fair approach and the same concerns about the ‘failure to provide’ part of the measure and three people mentioned dog fouling.

There were 12 comments that have been classified as ‘Other’ two of these queried whether or not out of control dogs were an issue at the cemetery and if this measure was required, one queried if this measure would be extended to other cemeteries that are managed by the Council with Oak Apple Lane mentioned.

 


 

Measure 6 – Fixed Penalty Notice for Stray Dogs

Replace the current “collection fee” with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for this offence of £100 (£80 if paid within 14 days)
Make it an offence to fail to provide, when asked by an authorised officer, a name and address in relation to allowing a dog to stray in the Borough of Maidstone.

Survey respondents were asked if they were in favour of introducing measure 6 as described above.

There were 1475 weighted responses to this question, with the most common response being ‘Yes’ with 1124 answering this way.

The chart below shows the proportions responding ‘Yes’ across the different respondent groups.

·         A significantly lower level of dog owners agreed with measure 6 than respondents that do not own a dog. More than one in five dog owners responded ‘no’ compare to one in twenty who do not own a dog. One in six dog owners responded ‘not sure’ compared to one in 12 respondents that did not own a dog – these differences are significant.

·         A significantly greater proportion of female respondents answered ’not sure’ to this measure at 14.1%, compared to 9.7% of males responding in the same way.

·         Agreement with measure 6 increases as age increases. Responses from 18 to 34-year olds were significantly different from the other age groups, with one in 5 in this group responding ‘no’ and one in five responding ‘not sure’.

·         A significantly lower proportion of economically active respondents agreed with measure 6 compared to economically inactive respondents. 15.1% of economically active respondents responded ‘no’ compared to 6.1% of the economically inactive group.

·         A greater proportion of respondents without a disability responded ’no’ (12.8%) compared to 6.9% of those with a disability.

 

Measure 6 Comments

A total of 368 unique comments were provided in relation to measure 6.

A dog could get out of its owners’ property for any number of reasons that does not mean it is a “stray” in the true sense of the word31 comments have been classified as N/A, these were where the intention of the comment is ambiguous or where an unrelated issue has been raised (in this section there were couple of references to cats).

There were 132 comments that mentioned dogs straying due to accidents, being spooked or people maliciously letting dogs out. Respondents stated that most dog owners would be worried or upset if their pet went missing and that there was a difference between a lost dog and a stray dog. 

Three respondents said that the current system should not change. 23 queried the impact of this measure. Some commenters rationalised that a true stray dog would not have an owner that could be penalised.

There were eight comments that expressed disagreement with measure 6 and 68 comments where it was suggested that the measure should be more lenient.  Suggestions made included that the measure should only apply to repeat offenders and/or that the fine should be lower.

All costs involved with stray dogs should be charged to their owners. A £100 penalty seems low.There were 29 comments that expressed support for measure 6, with these stating that the proposed measure appears fair or a good idea. In addition, there were 34 comments mentioning that dog owners should be accountable and responsible for their pet. There were 56 comments that stated that they thought the penalty should be harsher, with most as in previous measures, stating the fine should be higher or higher for repeat offences. There were also 23 comments around the costs of this measure with respondents stating that the taxpayer should not be burdened with the cost of stray dog.  

There were 24 comments that mentioned enforcement in relation to measure 6. Respondents queried how this could be enforced if the dog did not have a microchip or how the intention could be determined in these cases.

I agree. I think here should be a large dog licence fee, this would discourage people from getting a dog without due care.

 21 comments contained a suggestion. There were a few suggestions that the definition of ‘stray dog’ needed to be more specific, revisions to the definition were also suggested by the Kennel Club in their response to the consultation. Suggestions were also made advocating different approaches such as education and home visits. As with the comments made for previous measures, dog licenses and tiered penalties for repeat offenders were suggested.

12 comments have been classified as ‘other’. A few of these comments seem to suggest there was confusion about how this measure would be applied and a few express dissatisfaction with the Kennels  that the Council uses. One mentions ‘income generation’ and one queried if there was already legislation that covers this matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survey Demographics (Weighted)